Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hmmm... Well, I'll take a look at it, but I'll probably just leave it
> be -- since the optimization might actually return invalid results, it
> doesn't seem like a very valuable thing to have, IMHO.
Yeah, I never cared for the fact that it altered the semantics of the
query, even if only subtly. But I'm hesitant to rip out something that
someone went to the trouble of writing and contributing ...
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
